Bombay High CourtABA/89/2017allowed

Shri. Madhukar S/O. Krushnaji Yeole v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Officer Incharge Chikhaldhara Police Station Tah. Chikhaldhara Amravati

2017-06-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba89.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 89 OF 2017 (MADHUKAR S/O KRUSHNAJI YEOLE...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. PS CHIKHALDHARA, DISTT. AMRAVATI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri. H. D. Dangre, Advocate for Applicant.

Shri. V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for Non-applicant. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 27 th JUNE , 2017.

Heard.

The applicant, apprehending arrest in crime registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought pre-arrest bail. The crime is registered against the applicant on the complaint lodged by the Auditor, that the applicant while discharging his duties as Secretary of Trimurty Jangal Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha, Jarida, has misappropriated huge amount and has not maintained the accounts.

The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that neither any member of the society nor any office bearer of the society has any complaint against the applicant.

The Investigating Agency has not registered any crime against any other office bearer of the society.

2 aba89.17 Considering the nature of accusations and the fact that the Investigating Agency has not complained that after this Court granted interim protection to the applicant by the order dated 16th February, 2017, the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation and as the Investigating Agency has not been able to show that the custody of the applicant is required for further investigation, the interim order passed on 16th February, 2017 granting protection to the applicant is confirmed.

The application is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE PBP